Christianity and how the bible was put together

[Matt Black]

There is nothing in the Bible that sounds like this:

"Along the way, he is attacked by a giant fish, whose heart, liver and gall bladder are removed to make medicines."

"Along the way, he was swallowed by a giant fish and lived inside it for three days." Sounds pretty similar to me

6. Conventions used after the Resurrection were RCC in nature. My theology is not dependent on the RCC. Is yours?

So stuff after the Resurrection was RCC? Funny, that's just what they say, too...

The Apostles rejected the Apocrypha.

Really? Where?

The early believers rejected the Apocrypha.

Again, evidence, please.

All Protestants rejected the Apocrypha.

True, apart from some Anglicans

The Apocrypha was never formally accepted by the RCC until 1532 at the Council of Trent.

Trent didn't even convene until 1545. You've got your dates wrong; I wonder what else you've got wrong...?

IOW, all before that date held them to be spurious books, not acceptable to be inspired books.

Then it's funny how the Orthodox believe them to be canonical then, isn't it?

 

[Matt Black]

Jonah is not a fairy tale.

The Bible teaches that Jonah lived three days in the belly of a giant sea creature. Therefore, it happened.

There is a key difference between Jonah and Tobit. Jonah has never been doubted by Bible-believing Jews and Bible-believers in the church. Tobit, on the other hand, was not accepted by the Jews and further has never been accepted by the entire church.

That's an entirely circular argument: you're saying that Tobit is a fairy-tale because it's not canonical, yet it's canonicity is the very thing we are debating here; DHK seems to think that it shouldn't be canonical because it reads like a fairy-tale; my point is that that would rule Jonah out of court too. Which argument are you gentlemen trying to put forward here?

 

[Matt Black]

Jerome never changed his mind. He never, never considered these books as inspired. Just because he quoted from them does not mean he considered them inspired. You need to do more study on Jerome, and his Latin Vulgate.

TS has provided clear evidence to the contrary; please engage with it instead of adopting your ostrich stance above

The Bible is my evidence. These books are not included in the Bible, or the canon of Scripture that makes up the Bible.

A circular argument again; the topic is 'how many books are in the Bible'. To argue "they're not in the Bible" is to beg the question under discussion here. For example, I have a Douai-Rheims Bible on my bookshelf at home - it certainly does have the DCs in it.

If they were used by the Apostles there would be evidence, but there isn't.

THe LXX, including the DCs, was used by the Apostles :BangHead: . PLus you have stated above that the Apostles rejected the DCs - again I ask, where's your evidence?

There is little difference between the Anglicans and Catholics. In the beginning it started out because Henry VIII wanted a divorce--the only difference--thus he didn't recognize the Pope's stand on it. Everything else remained the same.

Er...no it didn't. Try reading some histories of the Edwardian Reformation, or some biographies of Cranmer as starters...

Jerome never changed his opinion. You only think he did. You need to study more.

Another ostrich alert!

Because Chronicles was inspired and the DC were not.

A bare assertion with no evidence - produce some please

There is the obvious reason. The DC all contain obvious errors: historical errors, theological errors, heresy, errors that prop up RCC teaching, errors that support the occult, dating errors, obvious forgeries, etc.

Inaccurate: they contain things with which you disagree and thus cause you a problem, so it's better for you to pretend they're not there.

They are fakes

Another bare assertion, with no evidence adduced to back it

The Jews also do not believe the NT to be accurate.

They also reject the DCs - are you therefore basing canonicity on what Jews rather than Christians believe??

Why not get your information from those that believe the Bible to be true in every way.

I think he has...

 

[Matt Black]

A non sequitor.
I have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita also; neither do they have the 27 books of the NT, so what is your point? The Islamic Hadiths don't have them either. Neither are they found in the works of Shakespeare. Anywhere else you want to look?

It's only a non-sequitor if you are using these other works as a basis for canonicity...which clearly you aren't

The point is, that the Apocrypha are supposedly OT books, but they are not found in the Hebrew Canon of Scripture because they were never accepted by the Hebrews, whose canon (the Masoretic Text) we still use today.

So you're basing your canonicity test on Jewish authority (Yavneh) rather than Christian sources? Bizarre...

 

[Darron Steele]

Now you're switching to criticism of the text itself. I guess similar 'fairy tale' points can be made about Jonah: man living for three days in the belly of a great fish etc. Does that mean that Jonah is discredited too?

Jonah is not a fairy tale.

The Bible teaches that Jonah lived three days in the belly of a giant sea creature. Therefore, it happened.

There is a key difference between Jonah and Tobit. Jonah has never been doubted by Bible-believing Jews and Bible-believers in the church. Tobit, on the other hand, was not accepted by the Jews and further has never been accepted by the entire church.

That's an entirely circular argument: you're saying that Tobit is a fairy-tale because it's not canonical, yet it's canonicity is the very thing we are debating here; DHK seems to think that it shouldn't be canonical because it reads like a fairy-tale; my point is that that would rule Jonah out of court too. Which argument are you gentlemen trying to put forward here?

Uh, Matt, I did not say that Tobit was a fairy tale because it is not in Scripture.

I said what I said. I do not think what I wrote is that hard to read.

I am reading what I wrote again, and I just do not see any words to that effect. Perhaps you chose to imagine them there so that you can make it appear that you had a rebuttal.

If you have the intellectual courage to address what I really posted, please feel free to do so.

 

[Darron Steele]

Accidental duplicate -- deleted. Sorry.

 

[Matt Black]

Your words "Jonah is in the Bible, therefore it happened" = "Tobit is not in the Bible, therefore it didn't happen, and therefore it is a fairy tale". Fair? But first we have to establish whether or not Tobit is in the Bible. This is the point of issue in this debate and the point your post failed to address.

 

[Darron Steele]

Your words "Jonah is in the Bible, therefore it happened" = "Tobit is not in the Bible, therefore it didn't happen, and therefore it is a fairy tale". ....

Nope. The first part is a rewording of what I said; the second part is just garbage you came up with. Just because an account is not Scripture does not mean it did not happen.

Here is what I wrote after what I replied to:

Now you're switching to criticism of the text itself. I guess similar 'fairy tale' points can be made about Jonah: man living for three days in the belly of a great fish etc. Does that mean that Jonah is discredited too?

Jonah is not a fairy tale.

The Bible teaches that Jonah lived three days in the belly of a giant sea creature. Therefore, it happened.

There is a key difference between Jonah and Tobit. Jonah has never been doubted by Bible-believing Jews and Bible-believers in the church. Tobit, on the other hand, was not accepted by the Jews and further has never been accepted by the entire church.

Again, if you have the intellectual courage to address what I REALLY posted, go ahead and try.

A person of integrity
a) after reading something into someone else's words that was not intended,
b) and being corrected,
apologizes or at least stops. S/he certainly does not try to keep it going.

Quit trying to weasel. It does not speak well of you.

 

[Matt Black]

I would say that "the Bible teaches that what happened in both Jonah and Tobit is true, therefore it happened." What say you to that?

 

[Darron Steele]

I would say that "the Bible teaches that what happened in both Jonah and Tobit is true, therefore it happened." What say you to that?

I would say that you are starting to do better.

I would say that the Bible has the book of Jonah, and the Bible teaches that the story of Jonah is true. Jesus Christ taught the same at Luke 11:29-32 and Matthew 12:39-41. This is included in Scripture. Scripture teaches that the story of Jonah is true.

I would say that Tobit is not Scripture. Unlike Jonah, it was not accepted by the Palestinian Jews of Jesus' time, and it has never been accepted by the entire church. Scripture nowhere teaches that the story of Tobit is true. Therefore, the story may be true or false.

 

[Matt Black]

So, are you saying that something is only Scripture if it is verified as such elsewhere in Scripture?

 

[Darron Steele]

So, are you saying that something is only Scripture if it is verified as such elsewhere in Scripture?

:laugh:

No.

Are you capable of debating people's real positions, or do you depend on attributing bogus arguments to people? I get the impression it is the latter.

You referred to Jonah potentially being like a fairy tale, and I disputed that. As far as truthfulness, Jonah is taught to be true by the Scriptures, because Jonah is in Scripture and all references to Jonah in Scripture treat the story as true: Jonah is therefore true. The same is not the case of Tobit, because Tobit is neither Scripture nor discussed in Scripture: Tobit may be true or fiction.

Now, about canonicity, let us just see what you have to say about this:

There is a key difference between Jonah and Tobit. Jonah has never been doubted by Bible-believing Jews and Bible-believers in the church. Tobit, on the other hand, was not accepted by the Jews and further has never been accepted by the entire church.

In other words, as far as whether or not it is Scripture:
1) Jonah has never been doubted as being Scripture by either the Jews or the church, but
2) Tobit has never been accepted as Scripture by the Jews nor by the entire church.

It will be interesting to see if you choose to address this, or conjure up and attribute to me yet another fabricated position.

 

[Matt Black]

It was a question, not an attribution, based on one of your stated reasons for regarding Jonah as being canonical being the fact that it is referred to in other parts of Scripture.

As to your other point, the NT also is not accepted by the Jews and was not accepted by the entire Church until the late 4th century; further, Luther had his doubts about the letter of James as well as the DCs. So I would question your use of that criterion as a determinant of canonicity

Is that engagement enough for you?

 

[DHK]

It's only a non-sequitor if you are using these other works as a basis for canonicity...which clearly you aren't
So you're basing your canonicity test on Jewish authority (Yavneh) rather than Christian sources? Bizarre...

Why should I even use Christian sources. The OT was closed. The books are in the OT, not in the NT. The OT was used by the Jews, composed by the Jews, and completed by the Jews before Christ ever came. Christ used the OT. Paul used the OT. The Bereans used the OT (Acts 17:11). The Ethiopian Eunuch used the OT. It was used extensively and all Jews had a thorough knowledge of it before Christ came. Some of the apocryphal books are dated after Christ came, ironically. But the Apocrypha is inserted into the OT, not the NT, as OT canon. Why should I consider using NT sources, when it is found in the OT. Jewish sources are the most accurate, but the Jews totally rejected it.

 

[Matt Black]

Er...for a start because we're Christian, not Jewish...?

 

[DHK]

"Along the way, he was swallowed by a giant fish and lived inside it for three days." Sounds pretty similar to me

Jesus testifies of Jonah, and as such puts his stamp of approval on it that it was in the canon of Scripture.
On the other hand there is no evidence that Tobit ever existed as inspired Scripture.
Jesus said: "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

The story of Jonah testifies to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The story of Tobit testifies to demonic activity and promotes the occult.
A big difference, don't you think? It has no place in the canon.

So stuff after the Resurrection was RCC? Funny, that's just what they say, too...

The point here is that I don't put my trust in the RCC and their heretical teachings. I believe in sola scriptura just as the Bereans did (Acts 17:11).
Contrary to your beliefs the trinity was not discovered by the RCC. It was in the Bible all the time, unless you believe in the line "If the English language was good enough for Paul, then it is good enough for me."
Contrary to your beliefs, I believe that the apostle Paul knew what the trinity was. Just because he did not come out and teach it in the NT, does not mean he was ignorant of its teaching.

Really? Where?
Again, evidence, please.
True, apart from some Anglicans

You failed to read my post to Thinkingstuff.
I am not about to prove a universal negative.
If you believe that either the Apostles or early believers used the Apocrypha, then prove it. That is your responsibility. I am not about to prove something they did not do. How ridiculous would that be!!

Trent didn't even convene until 1545. You've got your dates wrong; I wonder what else you've got wrong...? Then it's funny how the Orthodox believe them to be canonical then, isn't it?

Yes, I got my date wrong. It was in 1545 that they officially recognized the apocrypha. But it was primarily a Catholic issue. The Orthodox is not a protestant church, per se. It is an offshoot of the RCC. The Anglican, Orthodox, and RCC are all related to each other.

 

[Matt Black]

Jesus testifies of Jonah, and as such puts his stamp of approval on it that it was in the canon of Scripture.
On the other hand there is no evidence that Tobit ever existed as inspired Scripture.
Jesus said: "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

So it's only canonical if Jesus quotes from it? That rules quite a bit of the OT out then

The point here is that I don't put my trust in the RCC and their heretical teachings.

But you appeared to be equating 'early Christian' with RCC, no?

I believe in sola scriptura just as the Bereans did (Acts 17:11).

Oh great. So just the OT then. ARe you sure you're not Jewish?

If you believe that either the Apostles or early believers used the Apocrypha, then prove it.

Already have:BangHead:, but just for you, here it is again:they used the LXX, which included the DCs. Case closed.

Yes, I got my date wrong. It was in 1545 that they officially recognized the apocrypha. But it was primarily a Catholic issue. The Orthodox is not a protestant church, per se. It is an offshoot of the RCC.

Not since 1054 it ain't - nearly 500 years befor Trent. That poses something of a problem to you, me old fruit - if, as you claim, the Apocrypha was the dastardly invention of the RCC and the Council of Trent, how come the Orthodox have it as well???

 

[DHK]

So it's only canonical if Jesus quotes from it? That rules quite a bit of the OT out then.

Jesus left no room for the Apocrypha. The OT is divided into three parts.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The Hebrew Bible (OT) had 22 books and was divided into three sections as noted above.
Our English translation has 39 books (the same books) and is divided into five sections.
The law of Moses is the first five books--the Torah.
The prophets is not simply the major and minor prophets, but includes the historical books of the OT, apart from the Torah.
The psalms is a word for "poetical books," and thus includes all books that are of a poetical nature.
Note: There is no section or division made by Jesus for the Apocrypha. There was none.

Quotations, allusions, or references to almost all the OT books can be found in the NT. There is no reference to any Apocryphal book in the NT--not the current apocrypha as we know it today.

The OT that the Hebrews used was naturally in Hebrew, the language of the Jews, the same that I have today. It does not contain the Apocrypha. There are some good reasons for that.
1. The OT canon was written in Hebrew; the Apocrypha was written in Greek. No Greek writing would have ever been accepted as inspired Scripture.
2. The OT canon was completed ca.425 B.C., and no book written after 400 B.C. would even be considered for canonicity.
3. This can easily be verified as all the books in the current OT are written 450 B.C. or before, Malachi being one of the last books of the Bible to be written.
4. Our current OT is translated directly from the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Scriptures.
5. No translation of the Scriptures is inspired. That includes the KJV. And it includes the LXX. The LXX is not inspired. Only the Hebrew Scriptures were. If one wanted to know exactly what the Scriptures were saying they had to use Hebrew. Hebrew is what was read in the synagogues, and Hebrew is what was taught to every Jewish child.

But you appeared to be equating 'early Christian' with RCC, no? Oh great. So just the OT then. ARe you sure you're not Jewish?

Why are the DC books in the OT? If they are part of the OT Scriptures then one must go with Jewish sources, do they not.
The reason I equate it with the RCC, is because it is primarily a RCC problem or issue. They are the primary religion that advocates the addition of the Apocrypha. In fact in most Christian book stores today, if you want a copy of the Apocrypha one must purchase a Catholic Bible.

Already have:BangHead:, but just for you, here it is again:they used the LXX, which included the DCs. Case closed.

Case not closed. You have made a false and misinformed statement.
The LXX did not contain the DCs, and it was impossible for them to have the DCs since the LXX was translated back in 250 B.C. before the DCs came into existence. There were some later copies of the LXX made around the time of Christ in which the DCs were inserted, but the original LXX did not have the DCs and could not have them. History forbad it. Books written between 200 B.C. and 30 A.D. cannot make its way into a book written 250 B.C.--physically impossible; and they certainly could not make it into the OT canon finished before 400 B.C. Your arguments hold no water.

BTW, I joined in this thread just in the last couple of pages or so. I am not going to wade through 14 plus pages to find your arguments or evidence. If you want to provide a link to one or two concise posts, I may read them instead of you reposting them. But as far as I have read, I have seen no viable evidence where either Christ, the Apostles, or the early believers ever used the DC's, quoted from them and especially considered them Scripture.

Not since 1054 it ain't - nearly 500 years befor Trent. That poses something of a problem to you, me old fruit - if, as you claim, the Apocrypha was the dastardly invention of the RCC and the Council of Trent, how come the Orthodox have it as well???

Certainly it existed before that date. I don't deny that. It has been a primarily a RCC issue, and in that context the Apocrypha was not officially accepted as Scripture until the Council of Trent. That was my only point. Jerome made it clear that it was simply reading material, and not inspired. The KJV translaters made it clear that it was simply reading material and not inspired. And thus it has been throughout the centuries.

 

[BRIANH]

Matt-I do not believe you or anyone else can prove what books were contained in the LXX at the time of Christ. We have no existing copies, no writers who tell us, and the earliest copies 300 years later have different books. Respectfully, it cannot be proven.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your quote does not change anything. I believe that you are misreading it.

I'm sorry that sounds like don't confuse me with the facts. However it was to prove a point on a statement you made with regards to Jerome and the Church now. This is what you said.

No one ever questioned until very recently.

Which I responded that wasn't true and then you said:

This is only one of many sources that could be cited. Jerome never believed in the Apocryphal Books. They did end up in the Latin Vulgate because he was forced to do so under pressure by ecclesiastical authorities.

Which contradicts your previous statement with regards to the DC. If Jerome was forced to do it then obviously there was discussion brought up about it at his time. Logical.

Your quote meant nothing to me. It didn't prove anything.

You don't get it do you.

I can say you don't get it. It was an obvious referrence to 2 Macc. Which is in the DC. And it's a quote from the NT.

A non sequitor.
I have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita also; neither do they have the 27 books of the NT, so what is your point? The Islamic Hadiths don't have them either. Neither are they found in the works of Shakespeare. Anywhere else you want to look?
The point is, that the Apocrypha are supposedly OT books, but they are not found in the Hebrew Canon of Scripture because they were never accepted by the Hebrews, whose canon (the Masoretic Text) we still use today.

My point was that you are going to sources outside of Christianity to develop your point. Ask yourself this. When were the Masoretic text written? After the establishment of Christianity after a school our council regarded all writings that supported Christianity to be excluded from their canon (books that can defile the hand.

• Every extant book of an acknowledged messenger of God, who was commissioned by God to make His will known, was immediately accepted as the Word of God.

* The internal evidence of the books themselves bore witness to the genuineness of the books. See Deut. 31:24-26; Josh. 1:8; Judges 3:4; Neh. 8:1-8; Dan. 9:2,5,6; Zech. 7:12; Jer. 36.

* The law of cause and effect. The books are not called canonical because Israel recognized them as such, but because all evidence showed them to be from God. II Kings 22: 23:1,2.

The completion of the canon of the Old Testament took place after the Babylonian captivity. The writings were collected after the people moved back into the land under Ezra and Nehemiah, because the Scriptures were needed. By 425 B.C., all the books of the Old Testament were written and collected.

This quote makes assertions that it hasn't developed verification that this is entirely so. It may be true but what sources are they refering to. I would like to know. I don't think it is prudent to look outside of Christianity after the establishment of it for support . I look plainly just a Christianity. I will be on board with you if you can show (verify) that the bible was accepted as being closed before the time of Christ. What document are you referring too? Its a simple question and request.